gnomechild

Thanks! Glad you like the idea as well. I think it would open a lot of possibilities. Out of curiosity, do you have an example of that taf_data? I'd love to see an example or just field definitions to mess around with it. Fingers crossed for a positive response from ED! I seem to remember using "GetDevice" in mission scripts before but can't check at the moment. I think it should be possible though. AFAIK the mission env should have all that available, but I'm very much a rookie at DCS scripting and LUA in general Ah nevermind, I was thinking of the cockpit arguments. Yeah, definitely different than the hooks. But still would be very cool if there's a way to open that up or another way to send that taf_data.

Wondering if it would be possible to get documentation for how to interact with the TAF through scripting. I know that LOTATC has the ability to send a TAF target to a player in a Mirage. I think it would be very useful and cool to be able to send a TAF to a player through a script for missions and intercept scenarios without having to rely on the constraints of the automatic designation.

No, the air-to-ground capabilities of the CE are very similar to that of the F-5. No CCIP or CCRP

+1 for this. It's very annoying having to set it in every mission, or flying on a server with it enabled. The boxes are very obstructive

FB links died, here's the photos directly

All of the information I have seen suggests that it does not have an interrogator. Both the F1CZ flight manual and the F1ED flight manual and weapons manual and Cyrano IVM manual make no mention of any interrogator device or mode or instructions for using it. Apparently some late model Iraqi F1EQs had interrogators, but both they contained entirely different IFF equipment than the CE and EE and most other (all?) export models.

Explanation of the RWR symbology from the weapons manual of a Libyan F1ED. Same model detector as our CE

SRS support has nothing to do with the actual module, so it's not an ED bug. That said, the functionality for the Hind is not included in SRS currently. It will be added in the next release. If you're impatient and would like to get it working now you can edit your SRS script directly like I did. See this post. (I am not affiliated with the SRS project in any capacity btw. Just wanted the radio to work in the Hind)

Hey @molevitch, I was impatient, so I wrote a bit of crappy LUA myself to make the Radios work how you'd expect in the Hind. This enables the radio selector and PTT for intercom and radio on the two stage trigger. You can replace the Mi24 section in your {path}/Saved Games/DCS(openbeta)/Mods/Services/DCS-SRS/Scripts/DCS-SimpleRadioStandalone.lua with this function SR.exportRadioMI24P(_data) _data.capabilities = { dcsPtt = true, dcsIFF = false, dcsRadioSwitch = true, intercomHotMic = false, desc = "" } _data.radios[1].name = "Intercom" _data.radios[1].freq = 100.0 _data.radios[1].modulation = 2 --Special intercom modulation _data.radios[1].volume = 1.0 _data.radios[1].volMode = 0 _data.radios[2].name = "R-863" _data.radios[2].freq = SR.getRadioFrequency(49) _data.radios[2].modulation = SR.getRadioModulation(49) _data.radios[2].volume = SR.getRadioVolume(0, 511, { 0.0, 1.0 }, false) _data.radios[2].volMode = 0 local guard = SR.getSelectorPosition(507, 1) if guard == 1 and _data.radios[2].freq > 1000 then _data.radios[2].secFreq = 121.5 * 1000000 end _data.radios[3].name = "JADRO-1I" _data.radios[3].freq = SR.getRadioFrequency(50, 500) _data.radios[3].modulation = SR.getRadioModulation(50) _data.radios[3].volume = SR.getRadioVolume(0, 426, { 0.0, 1.0 }, false) _data.radios[3].volMode = 0 _data.radios[4].name = "R-828" _data.radios[4].freq = SR.getRadioFrequency(51) _data.radios[4].modulation = 1 --SR.getRadioModulation(50) _data.radios[4].volume = SR.getRadioVolume(0, 339, { 0.0, 1.0 }, false) _data.radios[4].volMode = 0 _data.radios[5].name = "R-852" _data.radios[5].freq = SR.getRadioFrequency(52) _data.radios[5].modulation = SR.getRadioModulation(52) _data.radios[5].volume = SR.getRadioVolume(0, 517, { 0.0, 1.0 }, false) _data.radios[5].volMode = 0 local _switch = SR.getSelectorPosition(455, 0.1) if _switch == 0 then _data.selected = 1 elseif _switch == 4 then _data.selected = 3 elseif _switch == 6 then _data.selected = 2 else _data.selected = -1 end local _pilotPTT = SR.getButtonPosition(738) if _pilotPTT >= 0.1 then if _pilotPTT == 0.5 then -- intercom _data.selected = 0 end _data.ptt = true end _data.control = 1; -- HOTAS for now return _data end or you can just replace the whole thing with my file. It'll be wiped out the next time SRS updates, but the official Mi-24 support will be in the next SRS release. So, works either way. (I submitted a PR to the SRS github but it's already included in the release so it wasn't merged. And it's a little sloppy since I'm not familiar with the project. Just wanted my Hind radios to work and I'm not a very patient person lmao) DCS-SimpleRadioStandalone.lua

Yeah the crabbing isn't the issue here. Obviously translating tendency is always present. But watching those videos vs flying in DCS it's very plain to see there's a difference in the instrument. If you start out coordinated and keep moving the pedals to stay coordinated (eventually needing to add right pedal as speed picks up), the instrument just wanders off to the left. It doesn't make any sense. It's not about translating tendency its about the turn indicator being broken.

Wow! Just over halfway through this campaign and needed to come give some feedback. Reflected has a gift for Helicopter ops. This campaign really displays the best of what helicopters can do in DCS. Every mission has been excellent. They are fun, difficult, engaging, interesting, immersive, and just cool. This is also the best voice acting I've heard in a DCS campaign. It's not a Hollywood blockbuster, but every VA I've heard is doing a great job, and none of it pulls you out of the immersion. The Guam setting is fantastic and I love the alternate history. Plus it's the first time really using the new Marianas map and it's a really good map. (I haven't had many issues with frames, but I have a 970 and play on low to medium settings in 2d. ) If you're on the fence about this campaign, and you love the Huey, do yourself a favor and buy it. Reflected, if you read this please make another campaign for the Hip and Hind in a similar vein! Alternate history in Syria maybe!

This is a great document. Lots of cool information and a great look at the process. Particularly please with this change That's really great for DCS and I'm looking forward to when all modules use this modelling. Will there be a similar update / change for the MAGIC II? Or is this API not relevant to Fox-2s? Thanks for the update!

I definitely have noticed a significant difference since the last patch. I have to be a lot more careful on takeoff. Can't just pull more collective. Totally cool with it if it's realistic but would like to know what the change was

Yeah certainly. What I meant by them being the same is that they both begin by designating a target location relative to the position of the aircraft with radar ranging. It doesn't really make a difference if you're designating the target or the IP, since in the case of a BAD the target is defined as a delta from the exact location you've specified. If that step were optional, and the aircraft displayed guidance symbology after overflying the point, it would be automatically designating a target point from your current position which would have the SNA function in two completely different ways for these bombing modes. Whereas if that designation is required the process is more or less the same from the systems point of view, you're just doing the normal CCPL procedure with an offset. Seems much more likely that the IP mode is a kind of "mod" or add-on to the existing CCPL mode which would mean that the nav fix is required exactly the same way that designating the target itself is required in normal CCPL mode.

Yeah that's how I understood it as well. Basically the process is identical for both forms of CCPL bombing since the IP with the BAD has the target defined as a delta from that position, so theoretically the precision is (almost) the same whether you're designating the IP or the target itself. The nav update is more of a bonus side effect of telling the plane, "My target is exactly here relative to my current position"

Yes that part is optional, but the manual specifically states the guidance symbology appears "Once the once the navigation fix has been performed, OR the PI has been overflown" (emphasis mine). Would be a cool feature to have to allow a nav fix prior to the IP in a safer area or easier area. But from reading the manual and my (hypothetical) understanding of the CCPL computing it seems unlikely to be the case that this is truly an optional step and requires the designation to be on the But with the target BAD to allow release symbology. Either way would be nice to get confirmation from the team what the intended behavior is.

Yeah I think you're right. Looking at the real Mirage 2000 manual it list the steps and the IP fix doesn't appear to be optional. Actually, the manual I have is for an RDM equipped Mirage. So I don't know if that's different on an RDI model.

For CCPL PI and CCPI PI bombing, the M-2000C RC6 manual states However, in game, the roll order wings are not displayed on the VTH after overflying the initial point. A nav fix is required to get the symbology to display. Unsure if this is an error in the manual or the module. But there it is. Steps to reproduce: 1. Create waypoint with associated BAD 2. Select waypoint, select bombs, select PI on PCA 3. Overfly IP, observe VTH symbology and IDN direction do not update Track file attached. Thanks! M2K PI overfly bug.trk

It's part of the new HUD symbology. They show up on the tracer line for the gun when you have a radar lock for air to air guns.

From the updated manual posted with the recent update: 2 stages trigger: • First stage: Activates the gun cam and the virtual tracers in air-to-air gun mode. • Second stage: Releases the selected weapon. MiCRoB means “missiles, guns, rockets, bombs” (Missiles, canons, roquettes, bombes)

On the SPU-8 selector, you can only listen to the 828 (Eucalypt, M-24, why so many names?) when the selector is turned to the "VHF" position. However, you cannot transmit on this radio using that channel, you must turn the SPU-8 selector knob to the "R-828" position. Probably related to this bug is that you cannot contact ATC using this radio. Steps to reproduce. 1. Create mission with a unit transmitting a sound and message in band of the 828. (I used 40.800 to match one of Kobuleti's tower freqs.) 2. Tune 828 to the correct channel, switch SPU-8 selector to the "VHF" position and note the message and sound playing. 3. Press Radio Trigger 2nd Stage. Note you are not transmitting on the R-828 radio. 4. Change SPU-8 selector to the "R-828" position, not that the message and sound are no longer being played. 5. Press Radio Trigger 2nd Stage. Note you are transmitting on the R-828 radio. 6. Cannot contact Kobuleti tower on 40.800 using either position of the SPU-8 selector. Hind 828 Radio SPU8 selection bug.trk

I for one am very disappointed to see Heatblur give up on developing a sentient AI for my backseat

I would definitely recommend flying with the hardened noise gate on for a while to get a feel for the radar and locking contacts and what the persistence of a real contact looks like. For most missions and campaigns the reduced detection range really shouldn't be an issue. It's the "A" button on the radar control panel (PCR) between the presentation switch and the elevation type switch. From what I understand, the radars in something like the F-16 or 18 have something like the RDI's noise gate on all the time. Very different systems and very different ways of managing the radar. The M-2000 with the radar control panel and dedicated VTB is pretty old school and super badass when you get the hang of it.

Huge kudos to the team for this update. The Mirage 2000 has never been better. The updated radar adds a ton of depth to the module and it's an absolute blast to learn

Lol I was being sarcastic too. I thought that was obvious but I guess someone on this forum thinking you need pretend military training before playing a game isn't that far fetched